Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Peck v. Peck

When attempting to modify or terminate an irrevocable trust, most trust attorneys will first run through the litany of available statutory methods of modification provided to us in the Florida Trust Code (for a review, click here). If none of the statutory methods work in a given situation, most attorneys will rely on the common law to modify an irrevocable trust.

The Court in this case upheld a lower court decision allowing modification of an irrevocable trust under the common law. The trust being modified came about because the settlor's father's will devised the residuary of his estate to two trusts established by his children for their own benefit. The daughter's trust was settled by the daughter, was irrevocable and named the daughter and her brother as co-trustees. Twenty years after the trust was established, the daughter filed a petition to terminate the trust and her children agreed to the termination. Her brother, as co-trustee, objected to the termination because he feared his sister might unwisely spend the trust assets, and his father, when he made the initial devise, had similar concerns about his daughter's spending. The brother argued that the trust could not be terminated because under F.S. 736.04113, the trust's purposes had not yet been fulfilled.

The trial court held that the trust could be terminated, since F.S. 736.04113 does not limit the court's common law authority to terminate a trust. Citing Preston v. City National Bank of Miami, 294 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the court allowed the trust to be terminated since the settlor and all beneficiaries consented, even though the trust was irrevocable and the trust's purposes have not been accomplished. The Court upheld the termination of the trust, and said that if the father had created the trust himself as settlor, he probably could have structured the trust so that it could not be modified under the common law after his death. But since he structured his estate plan in a way which allowed the daughter to settle her own trust, she was able to modify or terminate her trust with the beneficiaries' consent, even if it defeated her father's intent.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rizk v. Rizk, 260 So.3d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) This decision centers around the ability of a beneficiary to challenge a will executed in another country even if they did not contest that will in the country where it was executed. Here, the will was purportedly executed in Haiti in accordance with Haitian law. The beneficiary tried to challenge the will in Florida, alleging that the decedent was not actually in Haiti on the day the will was purportedly signed, and that the witnesses did not sign the will on that date. F.S. 732.502(2) provides that a nonresident's will will be treated as valid in Florida if the will is valid under the laws of the state or country where the will was executed. Because the beneficiary had not challenged the will's validity in Haiti and was receiving benefits from that will, the Court upheld the trial court's determination that the 2013 will was valid in Haiti.

I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository.
Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order.
Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions as personal …

Bitezakis v. Bitezakis, 264 So.3d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) While it seems easy enough to execute a will, this case reminds us that a client's attempt to do so at home without the guidance of a lawyer may have serious unintended consequences if the will is not executed in strict compliance with the signature requirements of F.S. 732.502. Here, the decedent and two friends were in his home when first, two witnesses signed a purported will of the decedent, and subsequently, the decedent began to sign the will but stopped after signing just his first name after his wife instructed him to stop because a notary was not present. The next day, she took the decedent to a notary, where he mistakenly executed an affidavit of subscribing witness in the presence of a notary. The trial court found that because it was the testator's intent that the document be his will, the will should be admitted to probate. The Court reversed and found that because the will failed to conform to the requirements…